Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.

So Sue is arguing against any taxpayer subsidy for contraception for any woman? She should join ACT!

Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.

“We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction,” she said.

They do. But taxpayers also have the right to say if you have half a dozen kids while on the benefit, we won’t keep paying for your choices.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 9:29 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Suggested line of counter-attack for Paula Bennett:
“Once again our left-wing opponents have demonstrated how little they care about the health of women in New Zealand. Clearly a Labour-Green goverment would perform savage cuts on the free contraception that poor women so desperately need.

In 2014 the country will face a clear choice between a compassionate National Party who understand the needs of women’s health care – and a Labour party that is willing to wage a cynical war on women in order to win power.”

These are people who do not accept personal responsibility for ANYTHING. They cannot even be bothered to control their own fertility when they have this belief the community through welfare benefits pick up the tab. People who have to pay for their own children take good care of their fertility why can’t these welfare people.

Fuck I hate the sarcastic/condescending tone that Farrar uses when he plays his role of National Party lapdog. He thinks he’s being cool like CJ Cregg when in reality he’s just trying to redirect the debate from the ridiculousness of taxpayers funding contraception to hey look Sue Bradford an easy target let’s hope nobody perceives National in a bad light.

Any true libertarian can see that this is one of Key’s attempts at trying to win over centre-Left mum and dad voters. A soft-cock and populist to the end.

It’s hard to know what is worse about Bradford being so indignantly against this…let’s start with her current job: head of some organization called Action Against Poverty…it has been acknowledged for 100 years (literally, not a figure of speech) that unless you are wealthy in the first place, the best way to GUARANTEE being poor is to have more children than you can afford to care for….and Bradford is against a VOLUNTARY scheme of SUBSIDISED contraception…I wonder if she has ever read any of the early family planning advocates, like Marie Stopes?

I actually used to have some respect for her in parliament…this just proves that not only is she an idiot, but she really doesn’t given a damn about alleviating poverty…and she told me once she was no long a marxist…

Seriously, do you even read what you write? Did God tell you something He created you with (a desire to have sex) is immoral? Have you ever masturbated a day in your life, because it is no different from having protected sex – the sperm does not get to its intended target. God you Christians are seriously dumb fuckers and it’s about time you die out. Good thing that the younger generation of Christians these days are more liberal and accepting of things like homosexuality (“Oh, the Bible says it’s wrong but God wants us to love everyone so I think it’s OK for gays to marry”) and not following in their parents’ footsteps. It’ll probably be two or three more generations before old religious traditions such as anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, anti-anythingsexual dies out.

As someone working on the front line seeing the pregnant teenage products of 2nd and 3rd generation welfare dependency turn up with totally unplanned pregnancies I think its a long overdue plan. The vast majority of these babies turn out just like their forebears uneducated drains on society that will just perpetuate the cycle their family has been caught up in . The way out of this dependency trap sure isn’t having another child and anything that can be done to halt the vicious cycle should be applauded. In my opinion and experience I would have added some form of incentive payment for them to do so.

Metiria Turei was on National Radio this morning saying it could lead to pressuring young women in to having contraception. We can’t have that.

Maybe we should do away with the DPB in case young women feel pressured into taking other forms of assistance from the government as well.

Not seriously suggesting that, just pointing out the absurdity of “can’t do that in case an extreme happens”, which seems to be the in thing. Partial assets sales will lead to foreigners owning the country. National government will ruin the country. Yada yada.

ps, this seems like a cynical move by the government to try and cut birth rates to save money by providing free contraception. Don’t they know that contraception = more pregnancies = more abortions = more expense?

Alan Guttmacher Institute researcher Stanley K. Henshaw: “Contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers.”

Planned Parenthood’s Frederick S. Jaffe, in Abortion Politics, admitted that “…even if everyone were to practice contraception, and use the most effective medically prescribed methods, there would still be a very large number of unwanted pregnancies.”

Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts [former director of Planned Parenthood of England] 1976 (even as early as 1973) quoted in Sex and Social Engineering by Valerie Riches.- “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate…”.

In Abortion, he noted, “…those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion…”

Alfred Kinsey, 1955: “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”

Sociologist Lionel Tiger, 1999: “With effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever…[C]ontraception causes abortion.”

British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: “…women…have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”

A recent 10 year study in Spain (published in the January 2011 issue of Contraception) showed that as contraception use increased by 60%, abortion rates doubled.

STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.

RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

Paying people to live a tax payer funded lifestyle where they don’t have to contribute back to society is the ultimate form of social engineering. This causes demographics to change far more than a few condoms and pills.

So this idea is “intrusive to women’s right to have children”!
I have no problem with a woman having as many children as she wants, as long as she doesn’t ask me to support them! If a woman excercises her right to have children AND demands financial subsidy from society, she infringes on my right to only pay to raise my own children. Enough said! THere are countries where the welfare state does not calculate benefit based on the number of children being supported, so let’s go down that route. Pay welfare at 80% of minimum wage, less tax, and watch the birth-rate slow down!

This is disingenuous. It is a blatant attack on women for votes. It will backfire against National big time IMHO.
You can get grants for many things while on a benefit. A lot of medical costs are already funded. All Paula Bennett had to do was pass a memo to case managers in certain regions of NZ where the breeding cult has embedded itself, saying contraception could be available for a special grant and have some ligation pamphlets lying around. So the conclusion is, Paula Bennett and JK have chosen to make this a political football. The message they no doubt intended is everyone should support themselves, and therein lies dignity, however the message that is passed on is “women are breeders”.
It’s a return to 1991 and 2005. It has the exclusive Brethren written all over it. history would dictate that when a party is pulled to it’s racist or women-bashing extremes, the groups of men wishing for a retune to the 1950’s are not far behind.
Same effect could have been achieved a lot more discretely. I’m sayin. I’ve blogged on how angry it’s made me personally.

It is contraception made available for free upon request. It is not compulsory contraception. It is about removing a barrier (cost) to people who might otherwise choose to use it.

Perverted logic that making contraceptives available for free is somehow forcing beneficiaries to have fewer children is as ridiculous as suggesting that free use of roads forces people to drive, that free health care services force people to make themselves unwell, or that free education forces people to learn.

Congratulations to the Minister this is a sound first step and shows the Government is serious about coming to grips with the major problems of state paid low level breeding., baby bashing,and gang growth.

If it is the governments intention to stop certain groups in society from breeding,

Yes, it reminds me of Margaret Sanger (the ‘Mother’ of Planned Parenthood) quotes about eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
– Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

“As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
– Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” Margaret Sanger Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921 Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pp 172 and 174.

Sifty… I’m in the same boat. And I too welcome the reform, and not solely as a tax payer… We can not afford to continue the cycle of poverty financially or emotionally or physically. Our future generations deserve better.

Now to encourage those males to take up assistance with vasectomies that have been available thru Work and Income!

It’s not free if it’s funded by the tax payer. I think a lot of these people don’t take contraception because they’re irresponsible, not so much because of the cost. I doubt this will reduce the amount of ‘poor people’ having kids.

One thing is certain. It will remove the “motherhood-by-accident or ignorance” defence used by those who have made a career out of breeding for a living, encouraged by our $$$ per child benefit regime. It is therefore just a precursor to the balancing policy of limiting the DPB to one child per single unpartnered female which may well alter the mindset of fecund schoolgirls who plan a life of bludging.

It doesn’t go far enough. Sir William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes appreciated that the welfare state wouldn’t be sustained without some contraceptive measures.

There needs to be a reciprocal obligation that if you receive ongoing state money then you won’t increase the amount required from the state. Temporary birth control shots should be a condition of welfare entitlements beyond 12 months.

***Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.***

Sue Bradford is clearly a moron. If she wants to reduce poverty, particularly female poverty, then contraception is one of the most effective ways of achieving that.

I am sure that somebody else has said (and I cannot be arsed trawling through the previous comments to check) but a better idea would have been to make contraception compulsory for all long term bludgers and anybody on the DPB.

In fact, can anyone explain this? I mean, why is it necessary for beneficiaries to have abortions (except for a very few special circumstances)? Surely we’re not saying that beneficiaries are too stupid to understand where babies come from, and how to prevent them – are we?

And toad, surely you’re not implying that anybody who is a Christian is automatically against abortion, while anybody who isn’t a Christian is automatically for abortion, are you? That would be a fairly sweeping generalisation.

The problem with the so-called “harmless” spank is that, on the whole, physical correction appears to have limited effectiveness whilst risking serious side effects. This is why pretty much every pediatric and child welfare agency in the western world discourages such methods in favour of proven alternatives which are more effective and which do not have the same negative side effects. This include the American Academy of Paediatrics, the Canadian Pediatrics Society, The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Australian Psychological Society etc. But hey, what would they know? Have they even read the Bible?

On the other hand there is no evidence that God reaches down from the heavens and breathes the spirit of life into a person at the time of conception.

(Just to be clear, not defending the Greens here. If you can’t support your child with your own earnings, then don’t have another one.)

In fact, can anyone explain this? I mean, why is it necessary for beneficiaries to have abortions (except for a very few special circumstances)? Surely we’re not saying that beneficiaries are too stupid to understand where babies come from, and how to prevent them – are we?

You are aware that contraception is not full-proof and that not all forms of contraception are suitable for every individual? Not that this justifies the 20 something percent of beneficiaries who have more children on the benefit, but what “special circumstances” are you referring to?

Weihana
There is a perception that many of those 20% conceive intentionally in order to top up the benefit. As I mentioned earlier, it will be hard to justify pregnancy if contraception implants are offered and the conclusion that a pregnancy is deliberate will be harder to dispel. The obvious next step is then to limit the DPB to one child (except in “exceptional circumstances” such as widowhood, spousal abuse etc and even then in the case of abuse, someone should be held to account.

The other change that should be made is that sperm donors (deadbeat dads) should be identified in order to get a benefit. Currently I understand a shrug and “dunno” is sufficient answer to identity of the father.

No, not really. Unless the state starts introducing surveillance in the bedroom to monitor condom usage, then I find it hard to see how they are “controlling” reproduction. Even if one feels pressured to take contraception home from the welfare office they are under no obligation to actually use them.

The real argument against state charity is that it becomes expected and assumed as a right rather than a privilege. But on the other hand it does virtually eliminate the type of absolute poverty you see in third world nations so on balance probably worth it.

I think this issue is about sending a public message, a message that having more children you cannot afford is a shameful thing that should be discouraged. This may hurt some feelings of course.

Weihana: An example of the “special circumstances” I was referring to would be a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape.

I am aware that contraception is not fool-proof, but there are so many different forms now – for both the woman and the man. (How about the man taking responsibility?) To me, abortion is very much an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” situation, when we should as a society address the underlying issues – contraception is one such way of addressing those issues.

I have rather old-fashioned ideals when it comes to couples making a decision to have children. To me it is a huge responsibility, and if a man and a woman decide to have children they should commit to stay together while raising those children. If they are unwilling to make that commitment, maybe they should seriously reconsider whether they want to have children in the first place.

Assuming that Toad is right (you have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt) then the government and WINZ are to be congratulated for funding abortions. It makes sense from what ever way you look at it.

“There is a perception that many of those 20% conceive intentionally in order to top up the benefit”

How justified is this perception? I honestly don’t know. I would be horrified to think of someone bringing a child into this world, a baby who will grow over the years through childhood, into a teenager and young adult, hopefully with loving parents to care for and nurture them, eventually to become an adult, with all that implies … simply for the sake of a few extra dollars.

Weihana, I see your earlier comment that “having more children you cannot afford is a shameful thing that should be discouraged.” I wouldn’t use the word shameful, but I do agree that prospective parents should look damn carefully at their situation and feelings before leaping into the sack without any contraception.

Can we afford another child? Is one of us willing to give up their job and stay at home to raise the children, or will we use childcare? Are we both willing to devote the next 20 years or so to raising these children? Do we have family or whanau who will help? How will we raise our children? What values will we instill in them?

I know more than one couple who consciously made the decision that their careers were important to them, and they didn’t actually want children enough to give up those careers. And good on them for actually recognising that, rather than giving into peer pressure to have children.

I wouldn’t use the word shameful either, I would expect the embarrassment and shame to come from the person who made the bad choice. It’s not as though we should all throw eggs at those who make bad decisions. We all make bad decisions, no one’s perfect. But if we don’t feel ashamed of our bad decisions then does this not imply that we view ourselves as not being at fault? Shame would seem to be the natural emotion when we are at fault and if we don’t feel that then there’s something wrong with us.

The problem is that your “evidence” is based on liberal propaganda. The fundamental problem is that you assume ideological nuetrality when there is none. The institutions of the modern West have been controlled by Gramscian Marxists and humanist liberals for close to a hundred years now. Using the “evidence” of Liberalisms foot soldiers only proves your own gullibility.

“On the other hand there is no evidence that God reaches down from the heavens and breathes the spirit of life into a person at the time of conception.”

Apart from the fact that there are billions of beings walking around with the ability to reason, love, hate, create and who long for justice and eternal life.

And there are plenty of very good secular arguments that conception creates a human being.

Lucia is Roman Catholic, not Protestant. The RC adds the teaching authority of the Roman Church to the authority of the Bible. Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible alone. Thus the difference between Protestants and RC’s over contraception, amusingly showcased in a certain Monty Python film.

I would be pleased if Winz continue their “suggestion” that some form of contraceptive is freely available, and I would expect the woman to adhere to the “suggestion”.
Listening to a woman this morning on radio, when asked, after two children, whether she would have taken advantage of a similar offer of contraception, she said “you bet”.

When you have young girls applying for the equivalent of DPB under the age of 18, brought in by their mothers who are currently in receipt of the DPB, you can understand why some of us are celebrating these reforms. And this may not be an everyday occurrence, yet it is not uncommon.

The major problem here is that every child born in a welfare home is a potential Labour voter – don’t expect labour to be rational about this….. Their entire future is hanging on muti-generation welfare dependency.

And for Lee and Graham, I do mention “Every sperm is sacred”. As I said then:

Please remember, this song is a joke – it mocks the Catholic sanctity for life, and reduces it to sacredness of sperm only. Certainly sperm is necessary for the creation of a new human life, yet so is an egg, and so is the creation of a soul. By itself, sperm is only sperm. It has no meaning except for what happens to it when it fuses with an egg.

Did Social Development Minister Paula Bennett feel uncomfortable announcing the contraceptive offer to Domestic Purposes beneficiaries? Possibly, because between women this issue is contentious to the point that some women would ignore it completely because of the paternalism inherent in the offer and also because some women would say that no woman can tell me what to do with my body, i.e. my body is my temple.
There is also the potential for the MSD to place mothers into embarrassing pressure situations where they (MSD) may question why that mother has fallen pregnant again despite the free contraception, threatening to dock the mother’s benefit as punishment. That is a possibility and it would be unfortunate if the MSD went there.

Lucia Maria, you can believe whatever nonsense you like. Just don’t expect us to too. Do you know how many “souls” your God is happy to wash down the tubes, so to speak? Quite a lot – around 25-50% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort:

The NIH reports, “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”

Lucia Maria –
Having read your reference, your condemnation of contraception seems not based on any particular Bible text, but rather opinions.
But it is interesting that you think –By itself, sperm is only sperm. It has no meaning except for what happens to it when it fuses with an egg.
and –After all sex is pleasurable, but it’s purpose is not to provide pleasure, just like eating’s purpose is not to provide pleasure – but the pleasurable aspect of eating sure does encourage us to do it to stay alive.
Do not thirst and hunger, more than pleasure, ensure we eat enough to stay alive, but from the rest can we take it that after a married couple have as many children as they may properly support, you believe they should refrain from sex after that?

I think your missing the point. If a man falls of a cliff, it is an accident. If I push him off, its murder. That is the problem with abortion. Yes sometimes babies die in the womb, just as people die in accidents. That is part of living in a sinful and broken world. But accidents do not justify murder. And I do belive that abortion is murder.

And just so we are clear, I have ALWAYS believed that, long before I became a Christian. I think there are very good secular arguments against abortion.

I wonder how many of those fertilised eggs that are lost are due to the woman being on the pill or having been on the pill. Most likely, most of them.

God doesn’t cause babies to die – all sorts of environmental factors cause babies to die, including chemical contraception which makes it far more likely that babies will die because their mother’s body cannot support a pregnancy to the hormonal changes and inadequate womb lining.

that after a married couple have as many children as they may properly support, you believe they should refrain from sex after that?

No. By that point their fertility should be waning anyway, and it’s only a few days a month that they need to abstain in order to not have any more children. That shouldn’t be too onerous, surely?

… your condemnation of contraception seems not based on any particular Bible text, but rather opinions.

There are Biblical texts people use, but they don’t make the case fully. To understand the Catholic position (which is actually Biblically based) you need to do a lot of reading. And I mean a lot. It cannot be summarised, or if it can, I can’t do it.

The fundamental problem is that you assume ideological nuetrality when there is none. The institutions of the modern West have been controlled by Gramscian Marxists and humanist liberals for close to a hundred years now.

If your child was sick would you take him or her to a pediatrician? Or do you pray for the illness to go away and to protect your child from those evil liberal doctors and their “medicine”?

Using the “evidence” of Liberalisms foot soldiers only proves your own gullibility.

Evidence is evidence regardless of who presents it.

“On the other hand there is no evidence that God reaches down from the heavens and breathes the spirit of life into a person at the time of conception.”

Apart from the fact that there are billions of beings walking around with the ability to reason, love, hate, create and who long for justice and eternal life.

Non sequitur. Life could have evolved from natural processes and as it happens there is plenty of evidence for this theory. No evidence for a God, however, and attempts to argue that such evidence does exist generally involve the same sort of illogical and mindless arguments as you just proffered.

People like Bill O’Reilly and others will often say something like “tide goes in, tide goes out” as if this statement provides some deep insight into the workings of the universe rather than just revealing the appalling ignorance of people who seem quite unaware that there are proven explanations for such mundane physical phenomena that do not involve any mystical forces, just the mathematical regularity of nature.

And there are plenty of very good secular arguments that conception creates a human being.

Libertarianism often acts much like a religion and indeed the link you offer me provides no reason for why conception is the defining point in ascribing human qualities to a person, it just asserts it as if it were axiomatic, much like how libertarianism asserts a great many things as axiomatic. It seems if you can get enough people to regard something as common sense then you can simply dispense with the need to actually justify something with reason and logic.

National better be careful: they might overstep and render Labour totally irrelevant. They’re supposed to maintain the pretense of a two-(main)party democracy by being just enough different to Labour to make people think there’s really a choice between them. This is going too far! The bipartide ruling political class might just be giving up the game here; Labour really must protest this policy….(a move to the right? lol)
Honestly, if Labour voters weren’t just reflexively anti-National they’d realise how great National really is: Labour policy initiatives of a few years ago seem to be the National party policy of the present (“Working [sic] For [sic] Families”, etc)!

I wonder how many of those fertilised eggs that are lost are due to the woman being on the pill or having been on the pill. Most likely, most of them.

God doesn’t cause babies to die – all sorts of environmental factors cause babies to die, including chemical contraception which makes it far more likely that babies will die because their mother’s body cannot support a pregnancy to the hormonal changes and inadequate womb lining.

Oh FFS, most spontaneous abortions are a result of chromosomal defects. Human reproduction was not created by God, it is a naturally evolved process which is messy and imperfect. It doesn’t matter how we live our life, if you believe in God then it necessarily follows that he created a process which would inevitably result in spontaneous abortion.

This is naive to say the least. Studies often start with unexamined ideological bais which skews the results. Plus academics are not above cherry picking results to get the answers they want.

This has been demonstrated repeatedly. For example ‘The Spirit Level’ book made certain claims about economics and well being, but it was discovered that they had left out contries that did not give them the results they wanted. And this happens far far more than people realise, and not just in the obvious areas like politics.

“Non sequitur. Life could have evolved from natural processes and as it happens there is plenty of evidence for this theory. No evidence for a God, however, and attempts to argue that such evidence does exist generally involve the same sort of illogical and mindless arguments as you just proffered. ”

Actually the human ability to love, reason and long for justice are extremely good arguments and evidence for the being a higher purpose of some sort. Hardly “mindless and illogical”. You own close mindedness is showing.

“Libertarianism often acts much like a religion”

So does your secular liberalism. For example, your “reason and logic” is little more than unexamined liberal dogma.

“indeed the link you offer me provides no reason for why conception is the defining point in ascribing human qualities to a person, it just asserts it as if it were axiomatic, ”

In fact there are at least two articles that do make the case. But this would require using your reason and actually doing the research necessary to have an informed opinion. It would also require you to use your reason to examin your own dogma, something I have noticed your generally not willing to do.

Weihana…Libertarianism often acts much like a religion and indeed the link you offer me provides no reason for why conception is the defining point in ascribing human qualities to a person, it just asserts it as if it were axiomatic, much like how libertarianism asserts a great many things as axiomatic

And you have asserted so many things on this blog. I have pointed out a few of your contradictions here. So, libertarianism often acts like religion and your political philosophy acts like what? Its hard to find where you stand. You’re all over the place from left to right. One minute you say that the government ought to regulate, then the next minute you say, you’re against the government’s decision about certain retrospective laws?

Sorry. For what its worth I didin’t start it! I think that thse kinds of life issues are always going to bring up people most deeply held values, so religion does come into it.

For what its worth I have had my say and am removing myself from the conversation on this thread so other points of view can be heard.

Falafulu,

“And you have asserted so many things on this blog. I have pointed out a few of your contradictions here. So, libertarianism often acts like religion and your political philosophy acts like what? Its hard to find where you stand. You’re all over the place from left to right. One minute you say that the government ought to regulate, then the next minute you say, you’re against the government’s decision about certain retrospective laws?”

I have noticed this about Weihana myself. He will say one thing on one thread, and then something completely contradictory on another. And he will claim that both views are not ideological, but “reason” and “logic:”.

There is nothing more frustrating than someone who lacks the self-awareness to examine their own bias and assumptions.

“There is a perception that many of those 20% conceive intentionally in order to top up the benefit”

Had involvement in budgeting planning assistance for the less well off. It had a high representation of single parent young mothers as one might expect with absentee, multiple fathers. Plenty felt the world owed them for the kids that they wanted to have and had figured they gained from economies of scale by having more kids. I wouldn’t classify it as a majority as plenty were just stupid and naive and often used kids as a means to try and keep a man, for instance. Quite a few just loved having children. Part of the budgeting advice did involve contraception as we tried to explain how expensive having kids is and obviously touched on accidental pregnanices. Perhaps they wanted to seem more in control but that seems unlikely if you’re off to a budgeting service but a significant number appeared planned and not accidental. With that in mind free contraception is probably of minimal effectiveness unless it’s tied to some sort of carrot and/or stick.

And that’s the nub of the problem – there is an element of our population who can make deliberate decisions to have children in the expectation that someone else will pay for them.

Yvette, actually, until 1930 both Catholics and Protestants agreed on contraception being wrong. Martin Luther, Wesley, Calvin and all protestants agreed.
The ‘eugenic’ groups (see Margaret Sanger above) pushed it through in 1930 after failing in 1908 and 1920.

Even Freud thought it was wrong –

“. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.” – Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

This is naive to say the least. Studies often start with unexamined ideological bais which skews the results. Plus academics are not above cherry picking results to get the answers they want.

The possibility that this occurs, and indeed the reality that it does occur from time to time, does not necessarily support the notion that it is a fundamental aspect of western science and medicine. Improvements in human health, and especially children’s health, is observable and indicate that, for the most part, western scientific institutions have robust processes in place to ensure research is objective and unbiased.

If there was just one scientific study or institution which supported the notion that physical correction was dangerous and potentially harmful, then you may have a point. But when there is an overwhelming consensus amongst experts in the field then your objections become less credible. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just that the likelihood of you being right is diminished.

Indeed you didn’t answer my question with regards to what you would do with your own children. Would you treat them with medicine developed by the same liberal doctors you denounce here? If you do, then that surely undermines your claim that these institutions are based on nothing more than liberal dogma.

“Non sequitur. Life could have evolved from natural processes and as it happens there is plenty of evidence for this theory. No evidence for a God, however, and attempts to argue that such evidence does exist generally involve the same sort of illogical and mindless arguments as you just proffered. ”

Actually the human ability to love, reason and long for justice are extremely good arguments and evidence for the being a higher purpose of some sort. Hardly “mindless and illogical”. You own close mindedness is showing.

Love, reason and justice all have very significant and important evolutionary advantages which would explain their existence. A family without love is unlikely to nurture the next generation. A person without reason is unable to devise the means of their survival. A society without justice will crumble and become history.

In no way do these aspects of human nature demonstrate the existence of a “higher purpose”, they merely reflect those aspects of our nature which have allowed us to become the dominant species on our planet.

“Libertarianism often acts much like a religion”

So does your secular liberalism. For example, your “reason and logic” is little more than unexamined liberal dogma.

“indeed the link you offer me provides no reason for why conception is the defining point in ascribing human qualities to a person, it just asserts it as if it were axiomatic, ”

In fact there are at least two articles that do make the case. But this would require using your reason and actually doing the research necessary to have an informed opinion. It would also require you to use your reason to examin your own dogma, something I have noticed your generally not willing to do.

If I wish to research something I will do it at my own leisure.

If you wish to provide a reference to back up your position then you should be specific rather than reference an entire website. Otherwise I may as well just reference http://www.google.co.nz. There, somewhere in there is a great argument to support my position and if you don’t go looking well then you’re just closed minded!

God did it
Its all his fault
comes with being omnipotent and omnipresent

The young girls that become pregnant mostly do not think “It just happens”
Dpb and increasing welfare payments for extra children remove any shame or responsibility for breding uncontrollably. As others have noted this is in fact social engineering in the negative.
Return to a state pre dpb were the market (nature)decides
To many kids =starvation
then watch the number of thoughtless random pregnancies drop

Fletch – Your quote from Freud would seem to contradict Lucia Maria’s “… and it’s only a few days a month that they need to abstain in order to not have any more children.” Lucia, I assume, refers to the rhythm method, which Freud despises as perversion.

Shit, I need my pain killers, but then they are man-made chemicals designed to thwart the pleasure of God’s purpose of pain.

I want to weigh in. I have an auntie who has 7 young children and is a stay at home mum who does a little physiotherapy. My uncle is training to be a teacher after he lost his job in the recession. They live off of working for families, student allowances and a few other things. They are an amazing family. The kids are all handsome, healthy, happy and intelligent kids. They have a great marriage, and with a little help from family members seem to get by absolutely like it’s no trouble. So this is to say that it is the culture within a family, not just the lack of money that is a factor in dysfunctional families. If you were to take the cost per child of their family as against income, it would probably be similar to a beneficiary with a child or two. I don’t know how they do it, but they even have us around for dinner, and are paying off the mortgage. They’re the reason why I think working for families should remain, as should student allowance, because they are precisely the kind of people those policies are aimed at helping. Arguably they can’t afford all these kids, but it would seem a shame for the world if my newest little cousins rafael and Francis were kept from it. They are a blessing to their neighbourhood. I think what is good about the welfare reform is it puts beneficiaries on the radar. Someone will be paid to pay attention to them. I feel if a beneficiary has up to two children they should have that right as long as they promote a good family culture with what they have.

I’m not referring to the “rhythm method”. There are signs in our bodies that indicate we are fertile or about to be, it’s just a matter of keeping track of those. Also, getting pregnant is not like there is something going wrong, while as pain normally indicates an illness of some sort. The only illness those who contracept are suffering from is laziness and an inability to refrain from indulging themselves.

Arguably they can’t afford all these kids, but it would seem a shame for the world if my newest little cousins rafael and Francis were kept from it.

But it wouldn’t be an issue if they were never created in the first place. We can always look in hindsight and say we love the fact that our cousins were born, but by that rationale women should breed as soon as they are able and keep breeding until their insides fall out, lest our cousins are never born.

Even if you have good morals and teach your children good values, if you have children you can’t afford then you are inevitably placing a financial burden upon someone else. Arguably they deserve assistance because they need it, but this is clearly a result of excessive reproduction beyond the family’s means to support those children without the assistance of others.

While this family has a desire to have a big family, other people have their own desires as well that require money also. Why should the desires of others be limited because some people want to have a big family they can’t support?

Lucia Maria
So if by ‘fertility awareness’ considerations one avoids the reproductive aspect of intercourse, I can not understand how that differs from using physical or chemical means to achieve the same aim – sharing a pleasurable experience with a partner.

I actually wrongly mentioned the pain killers as an aside joke, which confused things, but Medicine offers any number of accepted physical interventions in the body and just as the natural purpose of sex allows the gift of life, is not cancer there to end lives – what of the physical or chemical interventions to change that?

Yvette – the Church considers a natural way OK, because it is still open to receiving life if God chooses and the couple are still giving to each other totally.
The other way is a manual barrier, or relies on chemicals to stop the process.

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

By the way, the whole Catholic Catechism is online – everything the Church believes. Has an index and is searchable.

But taxpayers also have the right to say if you have half a dozen kids while on the benefit, we won’t keep paying for your choices,/blockquote>

No they don’t. And yes you will, even under this policy. Unless you are signaling National’s next step is forced abortions?

From John Key:

Beneficiary birth control ‘common sense’ -

Oppression of minorities is always common sense to the oppressors – slavery, colonization, genocide, deportation of gypsies (in modern France, under Sarkozy)…so obviously common sense, at the time. The fact that it is alway the minorities that are singled out for special treatment, and the sad history of such treatment, escapes simple folk like our PM.

And what kind of message to the existing children of beneficiaries, mostly well loved and well cared for?

“Hey, you, we don’t want you in our face!” “Go top yourself!”

This is just so disgusting, and ignorant of the lessons of history, and of basic human rights, as to make me feel sick.

What is this right wing fixation with women’s reproduction organs? In many states in the US, for example, a usually utterly unnecessary, invasive procedure, an internal ultrasound scan, is compulsory for women seeking state funded abortions. Of course, this repugnant law hits the poor – because, let’s face it, that’s what they deserve.

And of course, let’s not forget the small matter of contraceptive failure. Two out of my three children were conceived in this way. Is the government going to pay compensation when recipients of “free” contraception get pregnant, anyway?

Now I have to go and feed my lovely three year old and try to forget what a beneficiary’s son is doing to those who now find themselves as dependent on the state as he once was. And Paula Bennet is living proof of the oppressed turning oppressor.

So if by ‘fertility awareness’ considerations one avoids the reproductive aspect of intercourse, I can not understand how that differs from using physical or chemical means to achieve the same aim – sharing a pleasurable experience with a partner.

The difference is having sex improperly. Sure, the end of both is no pregnancy in most cases, but the marital act is a renewal of wedding vows. If you contracept during that act, you are basically holding that part of yourself back from your spouse, saying I worship with with only part of my body and only that part of you that is not fertile. It negates the wedding vows which give all, not some.

Some politicians made a rule book for social order a few thousand years back – they defined what was proper and it’s relevant today.

Please refrain from burning your daughters on a bonfire if they are not virgins when they get married folks… we dropped that thing but selectively keep other bits because God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

In seriousness, I don’t quite get where you’re coming from. Surely you understand that Christians generally tend to live their lives according to God’s principles. That includes sex. As far as I’m concerned, that basically means you only have sex when you’re married. No biggie, surely?

I don’t happen to agree with Lucia Maria as far as contraception, but there you go. Sometimes Christians have different viewpoints about some things. I guess by now you’re just falling down in amazement, right? I mean, two people who have the same general beliefs but differ in certain details – who would’ve thought it?

“Instead, you should have been encouraged to pray for his conversion.”

Ha ha, the good old Catholic church, as open to other opinions as the Labour party.

Oh, and please Lucia, don’t flatter yourself, it is not a case of not liking you, it is more of a case of pity.

I feel pity for you that you are going to waste your life, I feel pity for you that you feel that you must deny yourself many of the joys of life because of the lie that is religion and the lie that is god.

I also pity you because you cannot and will not see the real and obvious damage done by Catholicism, remember, these are the people who say that AIDS is bad but condoms are worse.

In seriousness, I don’t quite get where you’re coming from. Surely you understand that Christians generally tend to live their lives according to God’s principles. That includes sex. As far as I’m concerned, that basically means you only have sex when you’re married. No biggie, surely?

Generally pick and mix which of God’s principles they follow;

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Bradford and the other Commie nutbars are only worried about one thing:
Less Welfare Dependant dropkicks means less in the future pool to vote Liarbore. If you want children,pay for them yourself by working. I’ll be fucked if I’m paying for SOCKs.

Good thinking Paula Bennett and National. Ideas like this mean Liabore will never ever get back in power and that’s the way I like it

“Instead, you should have been encouraged to pray for his conversion.”

He pretended to convert as it was causing problems in the catholic community and especially school for his children. If you went to a catholic school and didn’t turn up to mass etc. you tended to get worse reports that mattered for secondary school and university entrance because of perceived attitude issues. He never believed it and was pretty much bullied in to it. He never spoke a word against catholicism until I told him I did not believe in it. Kept his word.

I had to laugh that mum had to get permission from the bishop to marry the man she loved – says it all.

Steve of North Shore – beneficiary numbers tend to rise under the right wing and fall under left wing governments. The Lange-Douglas clusterfuck a notable exception, but that was just right wing in drag.

burt
Thanks for the laugh, but you should know by now that what the Bible says is not so important, it’s the interpretation by those in the know, like that joker in Rome, or Bishop Tamaki, that really counts.

You didn’t comment on the consideration of physically or chemically intervening in the case of cancer, which I thought was relevant, following the principal of what is natural or not, or taking measures against what God may have presented on you.

If you contracept during that act, you are basically holding that part of yourself back from your spouse, saying I worship with with only part of my body and only that part of you that is not fertile. It negates the wedding vows which give all, not some.
I’d have thought a fully consenting compassionate consideration to avoid having a child if you are honestly unable to provide reasonably for one, would be more respecting that needlessly risking pregnancy for pleasure.
I do suspect much of this issue is still the Roman Church controlling the situation in the same way as priests may not marry, ignoring the status for example that the Magdalene was ‘apsotle to the apostles’, and I am wary of the amount of additional reading or explanation you claim is required beyond the Bible, again ‘you can’t be a Christian except through the Church’ – and having taken one infallible position it is a little difficult to change, because you are then fallible – non? QED

But I tire –
at least what the Government offers is that, an offer. I understand people need only say Yes, or No. As some indicated on ONE NEWS this evening, either way.

Steve (North Shore) – Someone is missing from the comments on this post. Wonder who? never mind
Yes. Johnboy should be along soon to lighten things up and kick the krap out of it

Comments like that just re-enforce to me the need for a benign dictatorship , because some people are just too off the wall to have the right to vote.

How is it immoral?

Listen to Burt above – you live your life – but I can bet you anything you like that you have absolutely no idea how some children in our society are forced to live because of blinkered ignorant thinking .

You’re not a real Catholic. Those of us brought up vaguely Catholic are, even though many of us are now atheists. But we still represent NZ Catholicism better than your hatred and judgement does.

I wonder whether some people just join a religion to have a socially acceptable outlet for their neurotic obsessions and control-freak bitchiness.

BTW Labour just plays into the hands of National by automatically opposing these measures – most people will support it. (Although I do think the National Party should start saying “taxpayer-funded” instead of “free”; it’s a small step towards reducing entitilitis in our country.)

I have an auntie who has 7 young children and is a stay at home mum … They live off of working for families, student allowances and a few other things … I don’t know how they do it, but they even have us around for dinner, and are paying off the mortgage … Arguably they can’t afford all these kids, but it would seem a shame for the world if my newest little cousins rafael and Francis were kept from it …

So, other people are paying for your meals and their house. That’s fair. Here’s an idea; why don’t you pay for little Rafael and Francis, and the other five kids they can’t afford so nobody else has to. Now that is fair.

Lucia Maria:
Still has not answered the question someone put to her/him
as to masturbation
Irrelevant i know but pertinent to her level of sexual repression.I do believe that at one time it was endorsed as a successful treatment of hysterical woman

Ironically – the old adage catholics girls are easy was pretty true – I mean if someone spends that amount and time and effort telling you something is wrong you need to find out why. As a good catholic boy I, and my classmates, knew our fellow catholic girls biblically on a regular basis.

Back to the original thread – Sue Bradford is saying it’s facism on Close Up and has actually said eugenics twice and slippery slope – luckily the average labour voter doesn’t know what the word eugenics means.

nasska
Thats why I will happily remain an atheist
Could you imagine eternity surrounded by only the righteous as who post on here. It would cause any sane persons to go postal sooner or later
Some fates are worse than even eternal damnation And at least you would have a bit of fun during down time from endless purgatory

How many Mosquteer women are going to use contraception? At ten children , they are just getting started. How many Winz officers are going to talk to the burqua /hijab covered hoardes about contraception?
Again , they will be bleating the its against our religion slogan. One law for all ; one policy for all. Never in NZ , because laws and policies are made to be ignored or very selectively enforced.
And where are the 170,000 jobs?

4. Parents don’t need to consider the cost to the taxpayer of unsupported pregnancy because a) Only a small minority of woman free ride the system and b) There is plenty of money but it is concentrated in the hands of the few. c) those complain are Pakeha red-neck types anyway.

@ the da vinci mode: well this has only been a temporary thing. The husband was full time landscaping and building, but the company went bust. Now he is re-training to be a teacher.

The kids are all going to be successful. They are top of the class, athletic and good looking. The live very frugally and when I said meals, I meant like Christmas and maybe a christening or birthday. They will more then ‘repay’ the ‘loan’ that you are making in the long run.

These are the types of families that should be supported. They had 6 children before the full time worker got made redundant, does ‘da vinci mode’ then say well fuck ya you can starve and be put out in the street? This is precisely the situation working for families was designed to aid. Not the middle class.

They weren’t on the benefit. Their situation abruptly changed, but they are being looked after for a brief period. The husband will quickly become a principal he is so well regarded in the community.

You should like, get fucked. I bet you were a wanker act supporter who wants to just rip the life support away from New Zealand families without any leeway. That’s why Act has disappeared in the shithole.

“These are the types of families that should be supported. They had 6 children before the full time worker got made redundant, does ‘da vinci mode’ then say well fuck ya you can starve and be put out in the street? This is precisely the situation working for families was designed to aid”

If they were dumb enough to have six kids and not for one moment consider that there may be a rainy day over the horizon then they are stupid.
Working for families was not designed for any other reason than to bribe the electorate. WFF has resulted in those who do not have any more kids than they can afford subsidising those bludgers who keep producing more and more kids safe in the knowledge that the tax payer will fund their lifestyle.

There was no flexibility in his mind towards mothers on the DPB Luc. Or to super annuitants. He was very clear on that.

Because, you see, I have read it. Very thoroughly. And I keep it on my shelf. So I can refer back to his inconsistencies and odd ball ideas.

You see, one very big difference between Morgan and Joh Kkey is that Morgan just wants to reduce the DPB (and all other benefits) to find the artists and those who can’t be bothered, whereas Key wants to incent them to move off twelfare and have rush and rewarding lives.

One is concerned with peoples wellbeing. And the other just wants a Unversal Basic Income at any expense

“Morgan set up scenarios for choice” – not for DPB recipients he didn’t. Nor for super annuitants. Nor for workers who only have their labour to trade on and who dare to buy a house. Nor, in fact, for those on invalids benefits.

Morgan is very cool with the idea that the beneficiaries in need should have their benefits reduced so that those who can’t be bothered should have a Universal Basic Income.

Good luck selling that Gareth. Even Hone and Minto will only sign up to that until someone gives them chapter and verse.

Ye-e-ss. You do get the bit that Jesus came to set us free from the laws of the Old Testament, don’t you?

OK, sure. So when and who liberates us from the New Testament ? For crying out loud, it laid down a moral code and a judgement and punishment system perhaps no less ‘out of date’ than the Old Testament was when Jesus set us free from it. Things change and if the lack of young people in church tells us anything it’s that the message is not resonating in any reasonable way with the public at large. Now sure that’s going to make things bloody entertaining come the rapture but I don’t buy it’s God’s plan to stop us enjoying being human when done with kindness, honesty and respect for the people we interact with.

This whole Christian anti gay thing and the anti contraception thing… what’s that all about? Sure 2,000 years ago there were poor infant/juvenile survival rates and shorter adult life expectation so procreation was to be encouraged – I get that. Today ? The no sex before, or out of, marriage thing has failed right. It’s a notion that simply fails to work and lets be honest – it probably never really worked. 2,000 years ago this rule of God sure would have gone a long way to protecting the blood lines of the rich and powerful but I don’t see why the best interests of those people should have such influence over scripture.

“The no sex before, or out of, marriage thing has failed right. It’s a notion that simply fails to work and lets be honest – it probably never really worked.”

(a) I know plenty of people for who it works very well.
(b) Look around at what free, casual sex outside of marriage has produced. Failed relationships, ever-increasing numbers of solo parents, a society where it is considered perfectly normal for a child to only have one parent at home, increasing abortion rates. Do you honestly think this is progress?

Wouldn’t you just knopw it. Guess who thinks young Maori men should screw the fuck out of their female counterparts and ensure the procreation of the race?

Contraceptive plan criticised

The initiative drew fire from National’s ally – Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who is also the associate social development minister. She said it was insulting to tell somebody how many children they should have.

“I’ve always supported the growing of our population, the growing of our hapu and iwi and so I’m certainly not one who’s ever believed that we should be controlling people’s fertility.”

This makes for sobering reading. The couple who, at 21, apparently didn’t know the first thing about contraception (a bit of an indictment on our society – if we know so much about sex, why the hell do so many people still get pregnant by mistake? Burt, this is just one example of what I was talking about at 5:20 this morning). Walter, who at 16, has a pregnant girlfriend (she’s 17), no job, but explains that “Money is all around me. Why do I need a job when money just gets given to me?” And the rumour they’ve heard that “… you crack it on the benefit if you have babies.”

(b) Look around at what free, casual sex outside of marriage has produced. Failed relationships, ever-increasing numbers of solo parents, a society where it is considered perfectly normal for a child to only have one parent at home, increasing abortion rates. Do you honestly think this is progress?

Progress… that’s a matter of opinion – one thing that is fact however is that it is what it is. It’s happening all over the place graham and the word of God from circa 2,000 years ago isn’t making much of a dent on it.

Under no circumstances should woman or any human have a microchip implanted into any part of them!

It won’t be long before the NZ government will make these mandatory!! (This has already happened in some countries overseas.) Then it will continue to spiral onto other beneficiaries and services such as when applying for loans, insurance, data in the workplace etc.

Say no New Zealand – Microchips have more capabilities than you think – good, bad and covert as they are a computer part, interfacing within your body internally.

Think of all the problems that happen to computers. Do you want an electronic computer microchip inside you? Surgery is often needed too remove them and other side effects can be horrendous!

Microchips are wireless electronic devices that can be hacked into (like a computer can be) and can malfunction due to technologies crashing! They are also susceptible to getting viruses – just like a computer does.